User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • August 31, 2014 at 9:45pm

    Is there significant reason to tell anybody that they MUST not murder anybody?

    Yes. It’s enough that it’s NOT YOUR LIFE.

    Pardon the caps, but this is very serious and shouldn’t be missed (and no bold tag here). Also as I’ve pointed out often before, there are other directions we can take our focus, such as improving transplant technology, researching possible genetic medicine (we’re a long way off from this one as far as I know, but it should still be researched), and finding better methods of care.

    By focusing on “kill or not” you miss the point — we are NEGLECTING work and funding that should be done to solve the problems that really are there. You frame the discussion in such a way that you act like admitting that nobody has the right to murder a baby means that you’re somehow brushing the serious problems under the rug.

    No — quite the opposite. It we took seriously the absolute nature of “do not murder” (regardless of your religious views), then we would devote far, far, far more time, effort, and money to SOLVING those problems.

  • August 29, 2014 at 9:44pm

    Even if we buy the argument that there “is” nothing there, Dawkins is forgetting the value of potential.

    He may think we evolved from animals, but we are NOT mere mindless beasts — we have brains that understand that what IS there would naturally become a living person by his own definition (not that if he defined it differently he would be right; the truth is we don’t get to decide who is and isn’t a person!). And a person’s value is not tied into whether somebody else loves them or not.

    He really should just admit he was wrong and move on instead of digging his hole deeper. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] August 29, 2014 at 11:47am

    “nobody associated Harry Reid with the outdoors”

    Should have gone with John Kerry Skyboarding Outdoors Center or Barack Obama Golfing Outdoors Center.

  • August 21, 2014 at 7:54pm

    The problem is, babies are not being given the right to let the decision of their own lives rest on themselves. If we can take away that highest right from any human, why should -anybody- else have any rights at all? It is massively contradictory, and that doesn’t even touch on the morality of it. Just speaking logically, it makes no sense.

    Pardon for the Seussianism, but it’s kind of like the Lorax. The babies can’t (yet) speak for themselves; we need to speak up for them. We were all babies once and anybody could have picked some trait or another and deemed it “weak” and acceptable to kill us based on it.

    Yes, even those with disabilities. If not -especially-.

    I also can’t help but think of what Jesus said about the criterion he’ll use on Judgement day. The least among us, he called himself. When we hurt them, we hurt God. When we give up our pride and actually work to take care of them, Jesus said we care for -him- in a sense. Acceptance and rejection of salvation does in part depend on this, for nobody who loves Jesus could accept murder, and all who do, love the people God created too (that’s everybody). Now not everybody believes this, but even the wildest atheist, if they’re honest with themselves, should be concerned with this possibility.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] August 21, 2014 at 7:47pm

    I don’t know that you will. We are obviously not going to agree with your atheism, but that’s a given. Your standing up against what Dawkins says, at least in this clearly heinous instance, IS much appreciated, and that’s exactly what I want to see from atheists.

    Where I think we’re coming from, if you’ve gotten what you felt was flack in the past (depending on how you came across :P) is that we don’t like to just write you off as doomed to hell. So just because we agree on this issue, doesn’t mean we won’t still try to convince you somehow. :) Also, for the sake of others questioning, reading along, we tend to want to try to reach them too, to help them focus on the question of the need of Jesus’ free gift of salvation. To think about their own mortality and where they’re going. Also issues related to general truth and the love of seeking it and helping others find it.

    I personally would not classify that kind of thing as being argumentative. It gets trickier, though, when trolls get into the mix, injecting their venom into the conversation, to make us look bad too for disagreeing with them, often bluntly. But if you don’t associate with their tactics, and especially if you stand up against them, we would usually appreciate it in my experience. :)

  • [1] August 21, 2014 at 7:41pm

    A majority supporting an immoral act does not make it okay. Somehow I doubt if most people decided they wanted to murder you, you would support that.

  • [1] August 21, 2014 at 7:33pm

    Does God help us take care of people?

    Yes — through teaching us compassion, humility, love, the value of hard work, and understanding of the worth of people who are different from us, yes, even those who suffer worse from the effects of the Fall than others. God loves them all, and understanding that does, psychologically, help us to care for them.

    Where you see this go away in secularized societies, you also tend to see a march forward of lack of care for even the healthy — for people who disagree with the ruling elites, etc. — and murder for any and all reason tends to eventually become ‘justified’ by these elites. Even murder of their own supporters (Hitler’s brownshirts for example). This repeatable historical association is not a coincidence. If you start dismissing the value of life even a little, eventually you end up encouraging those who may dismiss YOUR life. Such societies also tend to lead to way more misery during life there.

    It may seem counterintuitive — the lazy side of us wants to avoid the work of that care, and we assume that’ll make us happier. I’m not saying this makes it easy, but I AM saying the spiritual benefit to those who make that choice is good. It can be a “refining fire.” So say many who have done it. Admittedly, I have not, but I HAVE experienced glimpses of the benefits of this in responsibilities I do have. Nor am I saying it’s for everybody; that’s what community’s for, adoption, etc.

  • August 21, 2014 at 7:26pm

    Depends on what you mean by “evolution.” In my experience (and apparently every other creationist), when evolutionists try to show evidence that it “exists”, they point to examples of change, apparently ignorant that the Bible does teach that biological CHANGE occurs. But the examples they show are what I call “downvolution”; things breaking, or, sometimes, just normal reshuffling of existing information. The kind of new-generation evolution that evolutionists actually need to get from simple life to all current life is never observed.

    That you think it is actually shows -you- (no offense) to apparently be a Kool-Aid drinker. (But just throwing around insulting labels either way isn’t an argument.)

  • August 21, 2014 at 7:22pm

    Sir, I’m sure you mean well, but that is a vile argument to make. Everybody has weaknesses, and IMO all weaknesses also result in strengths. When somebody has a stronger weakness than others, it is just possible that they may also tend to have a greater strength, that also might not be recognized by most people as we don’t relate as well to it. Many people with this and other syndromes are indeed beautiful spiritually compared to the rest of us. If you don’t like the word “spiritually”, swap it for kindness, lovingness, etc.

    Sure, some people won’t be that way; humans always have variety, but what possible relevance could that have here? Surely you aren’t saying we should kill people on the off chance they might not be nice? If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, the only result would be total genocide (and ANY partial genocide or murder is still wrong!).

    This is why Dawkins’ approach and that of some others is so heinous. Because they personally don’t value those with developmental and other syndromes, because they don’t see their worth, they assume that because they are ‘weak’ it’s okay to kill them. It’s high time people who think that way be confronted with the fact that they are NOT omniscient and they don’t know all possible value. Whether you think any omniscient being exists or not, this remains true. Nobody has the right to deem fellow humans “less fit”, not even when they’re still single-celled.

  • [5] August 21, 2014 at 7:13pm


    Atheists and agnostics, stop defending this monster just because he is on your side. It’s time to open up your eyes that all the other more borderline offensive things he said, he really did mean them, and this time he stepped in it so clearly you have to be clearly blind not to see it. This is exactly the sentiment that fed Nazi Germany, which was also based in large part on an “apply it to humans” evolutionary view.

    At the very least, admit that this man is outrageous. Doesn’t mean you have to disagree with all his arguments by this virtue alone. Doesn’t mean you have to suddenly find religion (although you -should- for your own sake; the soundly supported religion in Jesus’ free gift of eternal life and forgiveness of sins thanks to his redemptive work on the cross, but not out of a reaction against one hateful atheist) — but if we are to believe the claim that atheists can be moral too, you have to prove it by standing up against this kind of atrocious advice.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] August 21, 2014 at 7:05pm

    Yeah… no matter what your opinion on what they didn’t allow, this is obviously in extreme contradiction of the spirit of the “no quartering” rule in the Constitution. Yes, that refers to soldiers forcing the use of your property, but that is a case of government forcing use. It’s their own freakin’ home! Hello?

    I cannot see a case where the founders intended that rule ONLY to mean the government couldn’t force that one use of your home, that any and all other forcing is okay. True, it doesn’t state it outright, to lawyerey types may get away with it, but in context of the rest of the Constitution, this is clearly the case as to what the spirit behind that rule was. It was the example they put into law because in that historical context, that was the abuse that was commonly experienced in recent past at the time.

  • August 21, 2014 at 4:44am

    Wow. I guess although even many liberals have admitted that was wrong, there’s always going to be some who will defend The Party no matter what…

    I’m sorry, that was absolutely disgusting and is one of the highest examples of corruption you can have. To have that person involved in investigating corruption is a CLEAR conflict of interest, no matter how you slice it. It was absolutely right to use what tools the governor was given by the state constitution to fight that corruption.

    Your money argument apparently misses the (I’d think obvious and universally undeniable) point that the corrupt official has a say in how money going to that office is used, and that corruption establishes a horrible moral set that could easily lead to abusing that power. Now it wouldn’t be that easy, but still, it’s very important for people in watchdog positions to be pure themselves. You’re blind if you think that kind of corruption would have no effect on who they go after.

    This corrupt judge is a case in point. You give office, or funding, to corruption, and you get corruption. It’s not okay if it’s “just a little.”

  • August 21, 2014 at 4:38am




    Okay, I’m sure this is what the law there must say to do in case of such an indictment, but WHAT THE HECK… Was this an optional thing? I was looking for this to be explained in the article but didn’t see it. Maybe I’m just missing it.

    We arrest governors we don’t like politically now?

    One corrupt judge saying this absurd thing in court that contradicts the state constitution is one thing. But to then arrest a sitting governor?

    I feel like I’m missing something here… Probably because I’m not a lawyerey type lol. Maybe I misread that… >__>

    If I did read that right… this smacks of a communist country. Even I didn’t think we’d fallen this far this fast…

  • August 21, 2014 at 4:21am


    That’s what we call a second chance.

  • August 21, 2014 at 4:15am


  • [3] August 21, 2014 at 3:59am

    They think, but I don’t think they worry too much about their size. That’s a human thing lol.

  • [2] August 21, 2014 at 3:54am

    “I didn’t say you had to go to church. I said come in with a church bulletin,” he said, noting that some churches publish their Sunday bulletins on their websites. “[Atheists] can download it and bring it in.”

    This seems reasonable to me. I fail to see how this qualifies as discriminating based on religion.

    I suppose you could make an obscure argument that somebody might invent a religion that says they can’t handle church bulletins, but I think we all agree that has its limits. Some people have a religion that tells them to murder people — that doesn’t mean our laws allow that, as they’re based on a higher law. Surely atheists, who claim to be freethinkers, should celebrate this? They can create the image that they’re open to hear out alternatives. They could go in and hand it in with “I’m an atheist” written on it so there’s no confusion. They could even attend a church to actually hear the message out and walk what they talk a little about their free thought principles.

    Admittedly to use this requires at least the cost of fuel to get there or of that much printer ink and paper, I guess, but if they find it so objectionable, just don’t frequent that store. Vote with your wallet, like how we don’t frequent businesses we find morally objectionable.

  • [1] August 21, 2014 at 3:44am

    I’m personally iffy on the logic “difference between legal and not”, because a big part of what some want to change in the law is to restrict semi-autos. As out of touch with official lingo as the liberal was, he did at least clarify it was his own personal definition, and that’s valid as a category-summary; “somewhat automatic guns can be called automatic for short.” I’m for brevity. :P

    However, the real issue is that being able to shoot off a lot of rounds fast CAN BE GOOD.

    Joe Biden’s claim that women don’t need “thirty rounds” to defend themselves comes to mind. Admittedly this scenario would be rare, but if a woman were threatened by a gang, having a semi-auto (whatever you call it) that can fire off a lot of rounds really fast (I won’t quibble on the exact number or rate here) could save her life. Especially since there’s no absolute guarantee your first shots hit.

  • August 19, 2014 at 5:16pm

    Okay, the paranoid side of me wonders if she aimed it at the guy on purpose just to try to imply that guns are just dangerous. Doesn’t read that way though; looks like an “innocent” mistake.

    But it does prove lib brains… well, that lib’s brains… aren’t all there. But not due to a lack of smarts, IMO — due to a choice not to think critically, and do that thinking before they act (or open their mouths). So, not so innocent.

    Can’t entirely blame them though. It’s mostly our lousy (liberal-strangled) education system.

  • August 19, 2014 at 3:50pm

    That’s just elephant hurling, fom (and recycled from similar baseless claims in past convos — it seems this is just your stock response when faced with scientific evidence against your position). What sound support do you have for that claim? (No fallacies allowed, etc.)

    While I’m posting, another link about the “no Egyptian slaves” claim:

123 To page: Go